THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

E N T A Division Bench of this Court felt that there is a conflict between the proposition of law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works reported in (2004) 265 ITR 658 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax And Another Vs. Gurunath Talkies reported

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short] dated 14.05.2015 passed in ITA No.1281/Bang/2010 relating to the assessment year 1997-98. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

E N T The Revenue has preferred I.T.A.No.496/2007 against the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act (for - 3 - short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of two residential houses purchased and also holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Where at any time, before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (xi) of section 47, any of the shares allotted to the transferor in exchange of a membership in a recognized stock exchange are transferred, the amount of profits and gains not charged

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

2) Where at any time, before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (xi) of section 47, any of the shares allotted to the transferor in exchange of a membership in a recognized stock exchange are transferred, the amount of profits and gains not charged

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

E Sanmathi Indrakumar, Adv.) Appeal is filed under S.260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA 970/Bang/2009 on 26.04.2010, etc. ® 2 Appeal having been reserved on 20th April, 2015, coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day, Vineet Saran J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT The primary question

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

22. In view of the inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements, a wider discretion is vested in the revenue for the purpose of taxation and ordinarily different interpretation of a particular tariff entry by different authorities as such cannot be assailed as a violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 23. In BENGAL SREI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

E. 72. Carry forward and set off of business losses 1 (1) Where for any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head" Profits and gains of business or profession" is a loss to the assessee, not being a loss sustained in a speculation business, and such loss cannot be or is not wholly set off against

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

E Block, Orchard Green, Bangalore – 560071 purchased in the name of his wife vide sale deed registered on 08.12.2011 [Rs.40 Lakhs paid as advance out of Rs.50 lakhs received as advance for sale of residential house, Rs.1.5 Crores paid through Citibank loan]. A residential house was constructed in the land purchased at Erumad, Tamil Nadu vide sale deed registered

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR A N D THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.331 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD – 12(2), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS. (BY SRI K V ARAVIND

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) challenging the Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench [B] dated 6.2.2009 for the Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The facts in brief are that the Assessee was carrying

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

E N T This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.989/Bang/2014 relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

E N T (B.MANOHAR J.) The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging the order dated 2-1-2006 made in ITA No.81/Bang/2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’) setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the First

SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

E N T This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A” relating to the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income from capital gain

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

E N T ITA No.11/2017 is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) challenging the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “B”, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in ITA No.35/Bang/2015 relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The respondent – assessee (ITA No.11/2017) was the owner

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2(22)(e) of the Act and the tribunal ought to have appreciated that there is no material to prove that loans /advance was granted to the assessee on behalf of or for individual benefit of shareholder. It is further submitted that share premium amount can also be considered for the purpose of accumulated profits, since, there is no specific

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2(22)(e) of the Act and the tribunal ought to have appreciated that there is no material to prove that loans /advance was granted to the assessee on behalf of or for individual benefit of shareholder. It is further submitted that share premium amount can also be considered for the purpose of accumulated profits, since, there is no specific